BDSM Seems at Variance With Anarchy
Visual Purple
It would seem that a society characterized by optimum liberty and
equality would logically have to reject the idea that BDSand/orM are
normal, natural or desirable sexual expressions.
If we reject political, economic and cultural bondage, domination,
sadism and the willingness to be enslaved, then how can we justify them
in intimate relationships?
Doreen
elroy
"Visual Purple" <Doree...@gmail.com> wrote:
Um, because some people have a healthier sense of the difference between
real and pretend than others?
Steve Pope
We don't need justification. We just need to be left alone.
Steve
David Weinshenker
> If we reject political, economic and cultural bondage, domination,
> sadism and the willingness to be enslaved, then how can we justify them
> in intimate relationships?
Because in that case it's intentional
play with extreme relationship dynamics,
rather than involuntarily-imposed oppression?
(Try posing your question on soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm -
they thrive on just this sort of question, and you will get
many answers - but be aware that consensual online fire-play
is a well-developed art form there: if someone shows up and
says "flame me!", there should be many posters who will gladly
do the honors.)
-dave w
Visual Purple
real.
I'm not talking about the light stuff.
Visual Purple
they thrive on just this sort of question, and you will get
many answers - but be aware that consensual online fire-play
is a well-developed art form there: if someone shows up and
says "flame me!", there should be many posters who will gladly
do the honors.)
Done, Dave. Thanks for the suggestion. And thans for the caveat, but
no need. Haven't you noticed that learning and playing chicken are
intimately associated in my warped mind by now?
Doreen
Lars Fischer
> If we reject political, economic and cultural bondage, domination,
> sadism and the willingness to be enslaved, then how can we justify them
> in intimate relationships?
Oh. Well, I don't require that my attractions, fantasies, love, sexual
desires, turn ons, or the way I fuck, must match some political theory.
That way lie madness.
I'm not poly because some political theory says it's the right thing.
I'm not bi because some political theory says it's the right thing.
And I won't stop loving being forced, dominated, and taken, just because
some political theory says it's a bad thing.
I'm just me. I stand by my attractions, desires and preferences, and I
act on them. The only reason there's anything political about it is
because some would like to claim that what I am does not exists, that
what I do can't be done, and so forth. I have to make a stand against
that. But none of my preferences make me better than anybody else, nor
does the fact that I and people like are target of oppression make me a
better person. I'm just me.
/Lars
Karl Kleinpaste
> If we reject
The problems with questions that begin "if we" are not less than that
[a] they often hide an assumption that the conditional in question is
(must be) true, and so should expose that assumption by replacing "if"
with "because", and [b] they arrogate to themselves the voice of "us".
Griff
*applause*
May I add this to my taglines?
Griff
--
... Zeal without knowledge is fire without light.
John Palmer
wrote:
You know, I hear stuff like this, and I wonder what people think goes
on in BDSM relationships.
A "master/slave" pairing might have an emotional bond that's hard to
break, but a slave can walk away at any time for any reason. The types
of people I know in the scene use safewords that will end a scene at
any time, putting the bottom in greater control of the scene than
seems apparent. While some people play without safewords, from a
societal perspective, "Let me go, now, and if you lay a finger on me,
I'm calling the cops!" still declares the end of consent, and thus,
the end of the scene/situation.
Though some people chafe at the description, it is a game. It's a
voluntary creation of a relationship structure that is exactly as
important as the people inside it choose to make it.
As for justifying it, I don't justify my personal relationships to
others. That's part of rejecting political, economic, and cultural
bondage, domination, sadism, and the willingness to be enslaved. I
don't have to justify myself to others.
--
Everything I needed to know in life I learned in Kindergarten. Like:
Beauty has a beginning, and an ending, but always lives beyond its span,
in the hearts of many.
Morag R
<ka...@charcoal.com> wrote:
Nice work.
On a different note, VP did take up dave's suggestion and take it to
ssbb, where she got two very decent answers. So I'm not feeling
obliged to wave the BDSM flag here (especially as BDSM seems to be a
popular shit-stir subject in alt.poly).
MoragR
--
Email - morag *at* homemail *dot* com *dot* au
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> Visual Purple wrote:
> > If we reject political, economic and cultural bondage, domination,
> > sadism and the willingness to be enslaved, then how can we justify them
> > in intimate relationships?
>
> Oh. Well, I don't require that my attractions, fantasies, love, sexual
> desires, turn ons, or the way I fuck, must match some political theory.
> That way lie madness.
Not to mention nonconsensual power relationship with said political
theory.
Having my private life dictated by politics is *so* not my kink.
- Darkhawk, close your eyes and think of the
dictatorship of the proletariat
--
Darkhawk - H. A. Nicoll - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
They are one person, they are two alone
They are three together, they are for each other
- "Helplessly Hoping", Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Morag R <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>On a different note, VP did take up dave's suggestion and take it to
>ssbb, where she got two very decent answers. So I'm not feeling
>obliged to wave the BDSM flag here (especially as BDSM seems to be a
>popular shit-stir subject in alt.poly).
Hrm? I'm wondering whether this is your overall impression (which is at
variance with mine) or whether you're seeing something different from me
because you're focusing on, er, certain specific posters.
--
--- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2006 by aa...@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
Money may not buy happiness, but it *can* buy affection
Siobhan
wrote:
>If we reject political, economic and cultural bondage, domination,
>sadism and the willingness to be enslaved, then how can we justify them
>in intimate relationships?
Some people like letting other people make the decisions for them,
whether that be in the bedroom or in less intimate matters. I suspect
that's the reason behind the success of the Real Woman movement.
The difference between anarchy and other systems is that participation
is strictly voluntary.
Siobhan
...Normal is what cuts off your sixth finger and your tail...
http://www.virulent.org sio...@virulent.org
"It has always p*ssed me off somewhat when people said they
were into DIY until they realised that they had to do
everything themselves." - Amon Zero
Visual Purple
experienced in BDSM, as well as the extreme dynamics of the
relationships, that make it so intensely and uniquely pleasurable
to those who partake in them.
It seems that what is sought after are the hormone rush and the
extremity of interaction, not necessarily the particular behaviors that
induce them.
I can imagine sexuality of intimacy and gentleness that is now
inconceivable to us bringing about the same intensity of pleasure
and being as extremely pleasurable without beatings, bindings,
suspensions, humiliation, fettering to the wall and the like.
In an anarchic society BDSM would not be taboo. Neither would they
be illegal. There would be no need for that.
Rather, I suspect, that they would become forms of behavior that are
voluntarily not engaged in as other, gentler, sexual behaviors that
bring about the same intense level of pleasure would be discovered in a
culture that was involved in the study of advancing the more sublime
aspects of Humanness on all levels.
There would be no need for legislating against BDSM, demonizing it, or
considering it pathological.
It would, I think, simply be supplanted.
Doreen
serene
wrote:
I really like this Lars person.
serene
David Dyer-Bennet
> Not a judgement, but a question that I am grappling with:
>
> It would seem that a society characterized by optimum liberty and
> equality would logically have to reject the idea that BDSand/orM are
> normal, natural or desirable sexual expressions.
Why? Doesn't optimum liberty require letting the people involved
decide this for themselves, rather than imposing a universal societal
standard?
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
Cally Soukup
> In an anarchic society BDSM would not be taboo. Neither would they
> be illegal. There would be no need for that.
You don't know many actual anarchists, do you? I know several
anarchists who practice BDSM.
--
"I disapprove of what you have to say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it." -- Beatrice Hall
Cally Soukup sou...@two14.net
Karl Kleinpaste
> It seems that what is sought after are the hormone rush and the
> extremity of interaction
I mean no particular offense, but you are obviously lacking even the
first, barest, most elementary clue about such relationships.
> ...they would become forms of behavior that are
> voluntarily not engaged in as other, gentler, sexual behaviors ...
Your bad assumptions are again showing, namely in this instance, that
"gentler" is an intended, or even desirable, goal. Heck, you're even
assuming that the foundational basis of such relationships is sexual.
It isn't about hormone rushes, or "extremity of interaction" (that
being as amorphously undefinable a phrase as I've seen since the turn
of the century), or żhedonistically-informed? gentleness.
Seriously, if you want to ask questions, then _ask questions_, but
*please* stop pontificating in the vacuum of your attempt to retrofit
the data to fit your baseless theory.
--karl
PS- I am perversely entertained by this expressed concept of /anarchy/
that includes even the concept of "illegal" activity and "legislating
against" anything. To quote _The Princess Bride_ with respect to your use
of "anarchy": "I do not think that word means what you think it means."
Siobhan
wrote:
>There would be no need for legislating against BDSM, demonizing it, or
>considering it pathological.
>
>It would, I think, simply be supplanted.
And to that I say, "Pfffft"
Only if you succeed in supplanting individuality.
Morag R
<E-0C0013...@cleopatra.co.uk> wrote:
> In alt.polyamory, (Mean Green Dancing Machine) wrote in
> <dpc2oe$hbl$1...@panix1.panix.com>::
>
> >In article <030120060643379298%m...@privacy.net>,
> >Morag R <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>On a different note, VP did take up dave's suggestion and take it to
> >>ssbb, where she got two very decent answers. So I'm not feeling
> >>obliged to wave the BDSM flag here (especially as BDSM seems to be a
> >>popular shit-stir subject in alt.poly).
> >
> >Hrm? I'm wondering whether this is your overall impression (which is at
> >variance with mine) or whether you're seeing something different from me
> >because you're focusing on, er, certain specific posters.
Those posters have generated enormous, often very adversarial threads,
which have constituted most of the recent discussion on BDSM per se.
I know we also have discussion that refers to BDSM as a sidenote or
just another part of life, like the various regulars here who practice
it in one form or another and who sometimes mention it in their posts.
Including me. Those posts aren't put up as a "let's discuss BDSM and
whether it has a right to exist!". IOW, while BDSM can be a popular
shit stir subject, not all posts on BDSM are shit-stirring.
> FWIW, I get the same sense that certain posters who have One True Way
> theories find BDSM something of a sticking-point in their otherwise glib
> theories of How It Will All Change, Come the (R)evolution.
Yep.
John Palmer
wrote:
>If I've understood correctly, it is the Catecholamine rush that is
>experienced in BDSM, as well as the extreme dynamics of the
>relationships, that make it so intensely and uniquely pleasurable
>to those who partake in them.
You've understood incorrectly.
>
>It seems that what is sought after are the hormone rush and the
>extremity of interaction, not necessarily the particular behaviors that
>induce them.
No. People like to have fun. They do things that are fun.
"Fun" is a limited word in this context... other people might use
other words, and insist "fun" isn't a fair descriptor. It isn't.
Nevertheless, it could be reduced to fun, however much gnashing of the
teeth it required.
>
>I can imagine sexuality of intimacy and gentleness that is now
>inconceivable to us bringing about the same intensity of pleasure
>and being as extremely pleasurable without beatings, bindings,
>suspensions, humiliation, fettering to the wall and the like.
To "us"? As in, to you and others? Sure. Not unlikely at all.
However, there are people who enjoy certain things. They will continue
to enjoy them whether you understand, or approve, or do not.
>
>Rather, I suspect, that they would become forms of behavior that are
>voluntarily not engaged in as other, gentler, sexual behaviors that
>bring about the same intense level of pleasure would be discovered in a
>culture that was involved in the study of advancing the more sublime
>aspects of Humanness on all levels.
Shrug. Some people like tepid water for bathing; others like it as hot
as they can stand; still others, as cold as they can stand. Take
wisdom from that knowledge, if you've got half the ability you claim
to have.
Chris Malcolm
Before I can answer this question, I need to know more about the context.
For example, you might be referring to the kind of connections between
fascism and sexuality that Freud suggested and Reich elaborated,
questions about the relationships between social and psychological
mental health and norms.
Or you might be asking a question like "if you join the Communist
Party, does that mean you'll have to give up our Sunday evening games
of Monopoly?"
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
Lars Fischer
> PS- I am perversely entertained by this expressed concept of /anarchy/
> that includes even the concept of "illegal" activity and "legislating
> against" anything.
Indeed.
> "I do not think that word means what you think it means."
"When I use a word it means exactly what I want it to mean. No more, no
less"
/Lars
Liminal
...
> Or you might be asking a question like "if you join the Communist
> Party, does that mean you'll have to give up our Sunday evening games
> of Monopoly?"
>
You just reminded me of something. Years ago, before the fall of
communism in the USSR in a major American city I met the son of
counselate staff member buying a copy of "Monopoly". He said it wasn't
legal to have it but his father said he could get it into the country.
Liminal
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Morag R <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> In alt.polyamory, (Mean Green Dancing Machine) wrote in
>> <dpc2oe$hbl$1...@panix1.panix.com>::
>>>In article <030120060643379298%m...@privacy.net>,
>>>Morag R <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>On a different note, VP did take up dave's suggestion and take it to
>>>>ssbb, where she got two very decent answers. So I'm not feeling
>>>>obliged to wave the BDSM flag here (especially as BDSM seems to be a
>>>>popular shit-stir subject in alt.poly).
>>>
>>>Hrm? I'm wondering whether this is your overall impression (which is at
>>>variance with mine) or whether you're seeing something different from me
>>>because you're focusing on, er, certain specific posters.
>
>Those posters have generated enormous, often very adversarial threads,
>which have constituted most of the recent discussion on BDSM per se.
Gotcha -- my take is a bit different because I view the recent threads as
a blip on more than a decade of alt.poly.
John Palmer
<E-0C0013...@cleopatra.co.uk> wrote:
>FWIW, I get the same sense that certain posters who have One True Way
>theories find BDSM something of a sticking-point in their otherwise glib
>theories of How It Will All Change, Come the (R)evolution.
>
>I don't "get" BDSM myself, but I figure, WTF? It's not my thing, but
>neither are line-dancing or oatmeal.
>
>I think the OTW crowd pay lip-service to diversity, but what they really
>mean is "I want everyone to be free to be different like me, and not have
>to do $SQUICKY-THING any more."
Nod. It's often based upon an idea that people could not possibly have
chosen to do $SQUICKY-THING because it makes them happy. The thing is,
happiness is a much stranger thing, and a much more powerful thing,
than many of these folks understand.
There are some people who are into BDSM who worry me, who seem to be
into it for reasons that strike me as possibly unhealthy. The thing
is, how could I know that it is? In the end, the only thing I could
know is that, if *I* was doing it, it would probably be unhealthy for
me.
Josh Robinson
> Or you might be asking a question like "if you join the Communist
> Party, does that mean you'll have to give up our Sunday evening games
> of Monopoly?"
Well, Wilde said that the problem with socialism was that it took up too
many evenings...
/J
--
Josh Robinson
jmr59 [at] hermes [dot] cam [dot] ac [dot] uk
Lane
Visual Purple wrote:
>
> If we reject political, economic and cultural bondage, domination,
> sadism and the willingness to be enslaved, then how can we justify them
> in intimate relationships?
>
Who is "we"? I wasn't aware this was an anarchy newsgroup.
But if I assume that your audience did, in fact, consist of anarchy
advocates, I would still challenge your claim that anarchy subsumes the
principle that we reject the willingness to be enslaved. It is even a
provocative idea that one can be willing to be enslaved. Not one I
disagree with, but many would find it contradictory.
In truth, there is no such thing as involuntary slavery. Certainly as
it relates to personal relationships in a safe and free society, one
ultimately has the ability to depart such a relationship, however
serious, in practice, that relationship may be.
To me, the interesting parallel is that of societal slavery, as
arguably, we all submit to as citizens of a government that uses force
to impose upon us many behaviors and morals with which we may not
personally agree. If we rid ourselves of that government, the vast
majority of us would still submit ourselves to some form of subjugation
in return for some comparable amount of safety from the elements to
which the lack of a formal government would expose us.
This is a concept that I think most anarchy proponents miss. We choose
our level of enslavement by choosing where we choose to live, what
employers we choose to work for, what chuches we choose to join and
what relationships we choose to enter into. No one who values even the
most basic sense of social existence will ever live a completely free
life.
Lane
Pat Kight
> Not a judgement, but a question that I am grappling with:
>
> It would seem that a society characterized by optimum liberty and
> equality would logically have to reject the idea that BDSand/orM are
> normal, natural or desirable sexual expressions.
>
> If we reject political, economic and cultural bondage, domination,
> sadism and the willingness to be enslaved, then how can we justify them
> in intimate relationships?
Because to those who enjoy it, BDSM can represent a profound experience
of trust and volition - and, besides, can be rollicking good fun?
Seriously: If you want to know why so many of your posts make my teeth
itch, read what you just wrote. On the one hand, you claim to be
promoting a "society characterized by optimum liberty and equality." On
the other hand, your idea of liberty seems to start from a position of
telling people what they may and may not enjoy.
Sorry, but that's not my idea of liberty.
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Chris Malcolm
Exactly. Ideologues are as jealous and paranoid about ideas as
monogamists are about sexual partners :-)
Lars Fischer
> Nod. It's often based upon an idea that people could not possibly have
> chosen to do $SQUICKY-THING because it makes them happy.
Or that people only do $SQUICKY-THING because they have not yet realized
that one can do $NICE-THING instead; once I make 'em see the light,
they'll stop doing $SQUICKY-THING.
> There are some people who are into BDSM who worry me
Sure. But then there are het, vanilla, middle-class people who worry me
as well.
/Lars
John Palmer
wrote:
>John Palmer wrote:
>> Nod. It's often based upon an idea that people could not possibly have
>> chosen to do $SQUICKY-THING because it makes them happy.
>
>Or that people only do $SQUICKY-THING because they have not yet realized
>that one can do $NICE-THING instead; once I make 'em see the light,
>they'll stop doing $SQUICKY-THING.
Chuckle; yeah, and all those gay folks will turn straight, if... oh,
right, that one's been debunked :-)
>
>> There are some people who are into BDSM who worry me
>
>Sure. But then there are het, vanilla, middle-class people who worry me
>as well.
Nod. And, in fact, some of those that worry me would be better off if
they learned the negotiation ability of good BDSMers. (Though maybe
that's unfairly blessing BDSM. Negotiation and awareness of choice,
etc., could all be learned by folks who don't do any BDSM-stuff. It's
just that, it tends to be a bit more quickly necessary, and needs to
be a bit more explicit, in a good BDSM relationship.)
John Palmer
Ted Eisenstein
> Nod. And, in fact, some of those that worry me would be better off if
> they learned the negotiation ability of good BDSMers. (Though maybe
> that's unfairly blessing BDSM. Negotiation and awareness of choice,
> etc., could all be learned by folks who don't do any BDSM-stuff. It's
> just that, it tends to be a bit more quickly necessary, and needs to
> be a bit more explicit, in a good BDSM relationship.)
. . and BDSM isn't necessary; I'd imagine there's a requirement for
good negotiation skills in, oh, for example, a good poly relationship.
Ted
Pat Kight
*grin* I think that's pretty much what John just said. And I know - from
direct, personal experience - that it's what he believes, and how he
operates.
-- Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Pat Kight
> In alt.polyamory, (Ted Eisenstein) wrote in
> <11ronbu...@corp.supernews.com>::
> I sometimes think it's genetic. Ruth is a rotweiler when it comes to
> negotiation, and Lydia seems to have the gene.
>
> Part of the deal when we have a house is that she can have a pet. As Ruth
> is allergic to almost anything with fur, it has to live outside. She's
> been promised rabbits, but she went in at "pony". :)
I think I like Lydia. She doesn't by chance need an Evil Auntie, does she?
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Pat Kight
> In alt.polyamory, (Pat Kight) wrote in
>>I think I like Lydia. She doesn't by chance need an Evil Auntie, does she?
> All she can get. :) I'm afraid that her two "real" Aunties are Good
> Examples.
Ah, a pity.
I can provide references from my one-and-only niece, who (at 24) still
remembers the running-away-from-home kit I gave her for her fifth
birthday ...
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Pat Kight
> In alt.polyamory, (Pat Kight) wrote in
> <Y9CdnWnjdM6...@scnresearch.com>::
> Heh. Do tell...
Canteen, flashlight, compass, whistle, dried fruit, that sort of thing. (-:
>
> Mind you, on the strength of the concept, I'll award you provisional Wicked
> Auntie status (I'm not sure Evil is what's needed).
Ah, yes - Wicked Auntie is much better. And just think how useful it
will be for you to have someone to point to as a Horrid Example!
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> Part of the deal when we have a house is that she can have a pet. As
> Ruth is allergic to almost anything with fur, it has to live outside.
> She's been promised rabbits, but she went in at "pony". :)
What about Lhasa Apso dogs? My understanding is that they have "hair"
rather than "fur" (I don't understand the distinction -- that's just how
it was explained to me) and thus don't make allergic people have
allergic reactions.
Laura Elizabeth Back
>In alt.polyamory, (Irfon-Kim Ahmad) wrote:
>>
>>What about Lhasa Apso dogs? My understanding is that they have "hair"
>>rather than "fur" (I don't understand the distinction -- that's just how
>>it was explained to me) and thus don't make allergic people have
>>allergic reactions.
>
>I'm not fond enough of dogs to have one in the house- cats go with carpets
>and dogs go with lino/flagstones IMO.
>
>If we could afford a couple of acres for a dog to romp around in, it
>wouldn't be such an issue, but UK gardens are small by US standards, unless
>you're either filthy rich or in the arse end of nowhere.
ITYM "North American standards" if you're talking to If. :-)
At any rate, it's my opinion that US standards vary too much to be
collectively discussed. My father lives outside a small town in Texas.
He and his wife recently bought the lot next to theirs to prevent its
being built on, because the best space on the lot to build would have been
close to the edge of the property line, and thus "right in our laps," in
his words. Which elicited a certain amount of grumbling from me, because
where I live, the space between his own house and said property line could
be enough for another lot entirely, never mind what went on the other side
of it--and not to mention how many people don't even think of having a lot
of their own.
--
Laura E. Back
Pat Kight
> In alt.polyamory, (Pat Kight) wrote in
>
>
>>ChickPea wrote:
>>>Mind you, on the strength of the concept, I'll award you provisional Wicked
>>>Auntie status (I'm not sure Evil is what's needed).
>>
>>Ah, yes - Wicked Auntie is much better. And just think how useful it
>>will be for you to have someone to point to as a Horrid Example!
> Excellent- what's your approx lat. and long., so we know which way to
> point?
44.61701 N, 123.09126 W
Give or take a few blocks. (-:
But if you just point in a vaguel western direction, you'll be fine.
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Morag R
<E-0C0013...@cleopatra.co.uk> wrote:
> In alt.polyamory, (Irfon-Kim Ahmad) wrote in
> <424pm2F...@individual.net>::
>
> >What about Lhasa Apso dogs? My understanding is that they have "hair"
> >rather than "fur" (I don't understand the distinction -- that's just how
> >it was explained to me) and thus don't make allergic people have
> >allergic reactions.
>
> Sadly, we don't have the budget, financial or temporal, to run a dog, and
> I'm not fond enough of dogs to have one in the house- cats go with carpets
> and dogs go with lino/flagstones IMO.
Polished boards for all of them I reckon :)
Getting dogs clinched the issue for us, but a large part of our
decision was dealing with our male cat prior to get his little spraying
problem fixed.
> If we could afford a couple of acres for a dog to romp around in, it
> wouldn't be such an issue, but UK gardens are small by US standards, unless
> you're either filthy rich or in the arse end of nowhere.
Following is just rambling, as it's clear a dog isn't an option for
Chickpea.
The fur vs hair distinction is a woolly one at best. You can get a lot
of variance within a breed. For example, Afghan Hounds, which are
known for their long Barbie hair, have three distinct coat types.
The only dog you could be totally sure about I think is a Mexican
Hairless. Cute little buggers, Frida Khalo kept them, but I understand
they are very expensive and very rare in the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Hairless
My next suggestion would be a poodle (not an oodle or a-poo unless it
came from a shelter and had a lot more poodle than anything else in
it).
Cheers
Anita
--
Email - morag *at* homemail *dot* com *dot* au
Miche
Morag R <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
There's also the Chinese Crested, which has a tuft of hair on its head
and one at the end of its tail. A friend of mine keeps them, and
they're nice little dogs (if funny-lookin'):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_crested
Even so, they may have more hair than is wanted (and I certainly
couldn't recommend the "powderpuff" variation for just that reason), and
they're likely to be expensive and hard to find, too.
Miche
--
WWMVD?
Ailbhe
(on Tue, 03 Jan 2006 21:51:02 -0800):
Oh, but Pat, if you were only willing to understand, it *would* be!
A.
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> The fur vs hair distinction is a woolly one at best.
I would just like to admire this sentence another time.
- Darkhawk, easily amused
--
Darkhawk - H. A. Nicoll - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
They are one person, they are two alone
They are three together, they are for each other
- "Helplessly Hoping", Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young
Miche
ChickPea <E-0C0013...@cleopatra.co.uk> wrote:
> In alt.polyamory, (Miche) wrote in
> <miche-24D206....@news.itconsult.net>::
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_crested
> >
> >Even so, they may have more hair than is wanted (and I certainly
> >couldn't recommend the "powderpuff" variation for just that reason), and
> >they're likely to be expensive and hard to find, too.
>
> Oddly enough, we were at a family gathering this weekend, and found a dog
> that Ruth is *not* allergic to. She's a Rhodesian Ridgeback, and a
> seriously nice dog: very calm, very dignified, and great with kids- and
> Lydia is desperately in love with her, and it appears to be requited. The
> owner is a cousin of Ruth's, so we'll arrange some visits. :)
>
> *Almost* tempted.
>
> We need to get the house sorted first, of which more anon.
Oh goodness yes, Rhodesian Ridgebacks are _very_ nice dogs.
Miche
--
WWMVD?
Visual Purple
deal of input. It is this:
Let's not subsume BDSM under "kinky". Let's consider it alone.
I contend that the need to even "play" that one is dominating and/or
being subjugated is caused by those modes of interaction in society.
Having engaged in them in the bedroom, those modes are reinforced in
the personality and are perpetuated in other places of interaction.
Therefore, BDSM and anarchy are incongruous
We read one another subliminally and are affected by others' behavior
by the "vibrations" that they cause.
The people who partake in BDSM do not, cannot, keep their actions
behind a closed door. Waves travel over, under, around and through
doors. They make doors vibrate and produce sound. Your doors tell what
has been going on behind them and what they tell can be heard - by
everything in creation whether consciously or not.
Their brain waves, sound waves, the disturbances they cause in
matter, the air and the ethers (call it dark matter if you prefer),
etc., affect us all.
As we descend on the spiritual/moral scale one of the effects of the
descent is that we perceive beings as being atomized. We see ourselves
and others as discrete. This leads us to the conclusion that it is
possible to perform actions that do not affect others.
The result of that is those on the lower ends of the spiritual/moral
scale do that which they like irresponsibly and regardless, nay
oblivious, to how it affects the other sentient beings who share
existence with them.
So, who suffers from the "bad vibes" of BDSM (and all other behaviors
that send violent vibrations out) most? Not those who are so
spiritually/morally dense that they do not feel subtle vibrations
(after all they are so coarse as to need extreme sensations), but
rather the gentle, evolved folk who perceive the slightest tremors.
Those who partake in BDSM are making all creation more coarse and are
not allowing those who would otherwise find ecstasy in the most sublime
sexual interactions to be able to feel that. They are "hogging the
spiritual/moral air waves" with their "vibes", even as one could not
enjoy chamber music in the presence of a heavy metal band.
Doreen
Karl Kleinpaste
> I have formulated my opinion on this matter, having considered a good
> deal of input. It is this:
I have formulated my opinion on you, having considered a good deal of
your baseless thought experiments, unmarred by any inconvenient
connection to the real world. It is this:
It might, just might, be possible to have a more inflated opinion of
oneself. But you'd have to work at it. That's OK, of course, because
you're so "evolved" as to be able to handle it, I'm sure. But it's by
no means certain that the rest of us poor, unenlightened, unevolved,
morally coarse folk have a scale adequate even to represent the
magnitude of your self-delusion.
> Therefore, BDSM and anarchy are incongruous
You have *just now* achieved this particular slice of Enlightenment?
Oh, but of course...I forgot -- you live at (of course) the highest
end of the
> spiritual/moral scale
of life, and others -- your inferiors, of course -- live
> on the lower ends of the spiritual/moral scale
and are making life difficult for You, The Ever-Exalted
> Gentle, Evolved Folk
Eugenics, anyone? By all means, let's force-evolve humanity, right
now. The "lower end" of humanity is keeping the "evolved" folks down.
[ /mutter/ ]
It's amazing to me, how much "evolution" and "advancement" in just
humanity's last century alone is perceived by certain folks. Kinda
makes ya wonder what the rest of humanity for umpty-thousand
generations before were doing -- just wasting time, spinning their
evolutionary wheels? Because some folks have come *so* very far and have
*moved past* the entire rest of humanity, in just their own lifetimes...
By the way, have you yet resolved your little oxymoron? The one where
"anarchy" contains an ability to call BDSM "illegal", the one where
"anarchy" allows you to "legislate against BDSM"? When you can't even
define your terms according to the rules of the language,
communication becomes impossible. I would think that someone as
"evolved" as you would have figured that out eons ago.
Visual Purple
that which you do not agree without sarcasm and invectives. Did you
think for a single moment how the negativity would affect everything
around you.? I don't think so. You were so focused on trying to
insult me that you could not see, and were oblivious to, all around
you. You hurtle words like rocks and sticks. Do you understand that the
negativity you let fly is now "out there" and reverberating, impacting
negatively on you and those you care about. Did you think you could
target me alone without hurting everything? You have proven that your
consciousness is contracted to a point. This is not a judgement. It is
a fact that you have demonstrated.
BDSM won't be illegl in anarchic society. I never said that. That is
your inference.
It will be passe. It will be recognized for what it is - a horrendous
form of slavery characterized by the inability to attain physical and
emotional pleasure without inflicting and/or receiving pain.
This needs resolution: "little oxymoron".
Doreen
David Weinshenker
> Let's not subsume BDSM under "kinky". Let's consider it alone.
What's that supposed to mean? What would you
consider to be "kink" but not "BDSM"?
> I contend that the need to even "play" that one is dominating and/or
> being subjugated is caused by those modes of interaction in society.
I don't think people who engage in BDSM
universally think of their activities that way.
> So, who suffers from the "bad vibes" of BDSM (and all other behaviors
> that send violent vibrations out) most?
I don't think you've established a case that BDSM is inherently
"a behavior that sends violent vibrations out" in the first place.
> Those who partake in BDSM are making all creation more coarse and are
> not allowing those who would otherwise find ecstasy in the most sublime
> sexual interactions to be able to feel that.
That's a very interesting statement that appears to asume facts not
in evidence. (But then your whole line of argument appears to assume
facts not in evidence.)
-dave w
Pat Kight
> I have formulated my opinion on this matter, having considered a good
> deal of input. It is this:
>
> Let's not subsume BDSM under "kinky". Let's consider it alone.
>
> I contend that the need to even "play" that one is dominating and/or
> being subjugated is caused by those modes of interaction in society.
Strike one: Believing that BDSM = dominance and submission. That's only
a fraction of the activities that fall under the BDSM rubric, and
probably not even the most common.
>
> Having engaged in them in the bedroom, those modes are reinforced in
> the personality and are perpetuated in other places of interaction.
>
> Therefore, BDSM and anarchy are incongruous
Strike 2: Believing that your audience gives a damn about anarchy and
what might or might not be congruent with it.
> We read one another subliminally and are affected by others' behavior
> by the "vibrations" that they cause.
> The people who partake in BDSM do not, cannot, keep their actions
> behind a closed door. Waves travel over, under, around and through
> doors. They make doors vibrate and produce sound. Your doors tell what
> has been going on behind them and what they tell can be heard - by
> everything in creation whether consciously or not.
>
> Their brain waves, sound waves, the disturbances they cause in
> matter, the air and the ethers (call it dark matter if you prefer),
> etc., affect us all.
Strike 3: Mistaking your personal superstitions for physics.
You're out.
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Steve Pope
>I have formulated my opinion on this matter, having considered a good
>deal of input. It is this:
>Let's not subsume BDSM under "kinky". Let's consider it alone.
>I contend that the need to even "play" that one is dominating and/or
>being subjugated is caused by those modes of interaction in society.
>Having engaged in them in the bedroom, those modes are reinforced in
>the personality and are perpetuated in other places of interaction.
>Therefore, BDSM and anarchy are incongruous
This theory depends on people who unconsciously
extrapolate anything that happens in the bedroom and let it
drive by analogy their total behavior in society.
Where are you meeting S&M'ers? Gor chatrooms??
S.
Steve Pope
>Visual Purple wrote:
>> Let's not subsume BDSM under "kinky". Let's consider it alone.
>> I contend that the need to even "play" that one is dominating and/or
>> being subjugated is caused by those modes of interaction in society.
> Strike one: Believing that BDSM = dominance and
> submission. That's only a fraction of the activities that fall
> under the BDSM rubric, and probably not even the most common.
Perhaps, perhaps not. It's very difficult to estimate what
fraction of BDSM activity traces back to a dominant or submissive
preference. I'd probably say considerably more than half, from past
discussion I'd guess that you'd disagree with this.
Regarding the claim that such preferences are "cause by those modes
of interaction in society", sure, the fetish must come from
somewhere. It's like saying shoe fetishes are caused by shoes.
It's a true statement, just not a particularly meaningful one.
Steve
Russ Allbery
> Regarding the claim that such preferences are "cause by those modes of
> interaction in society", sure, the fetish must come from somewhere.
> It's like saying shoe fetishes are caused by shoes. It's a true
> statement, just not a particularly meaningful one.
And the underlying assumption of the original post is that human
interaction has been fundamentally broken for thousands of years and and
power structures, whether out in the real world or in fantasy play, are
inherently unnatural for human beings. This isn't a particularly uncommon
belief among proponents of radical utopias, and as near as I can tell,
it's almost inevitably a sign that there's no point in discussion. Those
who deeply hold to that belief to the degree that they want to preach
about it in public appear, in my experience, to hold it at the level of an
axiomatic religious belief and aren't actually interested in discussing it
(as opposed to prosletyzing).
I don't have a lot of patience with "everything you know is wrong" social
theories, whether about anarchy or about polyamory. It's one of the
reasons why I think the "polyamory is more evolved" attitude is so silly.
The following is a generalization, I know, but I think it has a lot of
truth in it: If people have been doing something for thousands of years,
chances are it fills some real need for many people or has some other
concrete explanation that can't be hand-waved away as "evil culture."
There may be other ways to address that need, or things about the practice
that need to be changed while still preserving its point. But chances are
that, no matter what alternative approaches are opened, a lot of people
are going to want to keep doing what's worked for them. The important
part is *usually* not to change what people do if it's working for them,
but to add mutual respect and increased opportunity for other choices.
The obvious exceptions are cases like institutionalized sexism, where the
long-standing behavior, whether filling some need or not, is actively
harmful to other people. But in order to make that argument, one needs a
very solid and defendable explanation of how it causes harm, not just "it
squicks me with its negative vibes."
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
serene
wrote:
> If people have been doing something for thousands of years,
>chances are it fills some real need for many people or has some other
>concrete explanation that can't be hand-waved away as "evil culture."
>There may be other ways to address that need, or things about the practice
>that need to be changed while still preserving its point. But chances are
>that, no matter what alternative approaches are opened, a lot of people
>are going to want to keep doing what's worked for them. The important
>part is *usually* not to change what people do if it's working for them,
>but to add mutual respect and increased opportunity for other choices.
<insert proposal here>
serene
Steve Pope
Expand that to other people, or animals, or the earth.
> But in order
> to make that argument, one needs a very solid and defendable
> explanation of how it causes harm, not just "it squicks me with
> its negative vibes."
"Inhumanties that stem from custom will eventually be replaced
by the moral strength that stems from intellect."
(I forget who said that...or whether I've worded it correctly.)
It was once accepted custom to practice war for the purpose
of rape and plunder. We're working on eliminating that.
I don't know that "institutionalized sexism" is some sort of
rare exception. What about global slavery? Abandonment of
the sick and the old? The millions of children born without
opportunity?
We have a lot to work on. To single out S&M'ers as some
sort of enemy of equality indeed strikes one as a sick joke.
Steve
Visual Purple
other societal ills, some of which you mention above that we are
working on eliminating.
S&M will eventually go the way of rape, plunder, institutionalized
sexism, slavery, abandonment of the sick and old and children born
without opporunity.
It will simply become passe and Human being of the future will look
back on those who practiced S&M as we do on the Vikings.
Visual Purple
of interaction in society", sure, the fetish must come from
somewhere. It's like saying shoe fetishes are caused by shoes.
It's a true statement, just not a particularly meaningful one.
Steve, please reread what you wrote above. You come close to making the
right analogy, then suddenly swerve off course and come to an errant
conclusion.
Try again. You're close.
Doreen
Steve Pope
> I did not single out "S&M'ers", Steve. I am equating them
> to the other societal ills, some of which you mention above
> that we are working on eliminating.
By "equating" S&M's with "other" societal ills, you are indeed
singling them out because they are not a "societal ill" in
the first place. They are not harming others, or in most
cases themselves, so given the vast universe of possible non-harmful,
willfully pursued activities, you have singled them out.
> S&M will eventually go the way of rape, plunder, institutionalized
> sexism, slavery, abandonment of the sick and old and children born
> without opporunity.
>
> It will simply become passe and Human being of the future will look
> back on those who practiced S&M as we do on the Vikings.
What have you got against Vikings???
Next, you'll be dissing Visigoths.
S.
Steve Pope
> Steve Pope wrote,
I have no idea what you're getting at. I said precisely what
I wanted to say. Can you clue me in?
Steve
Ted Eisenstein
> And the underlying assumption of the original post is that human
> interaction has been fundamentally broken for thousands of years and and
> power structures, whether out in the real world or in fantasy play, are
> inherently unnatural for human beings.
I'd love to find out where they got the data from that survives
from thousands of years ago, that shows what the original society/ies
were like, and and what happened to cause the breakdown, and what
the breakdown was. . .
Ted
Doug Wickstrom
<ckpls11jmpad95bad...@4ax.com>
ChickPea <E-0C0013...@cleopatra.co.uk> caused electrons to
dance and photons to travel coherently in saying:
>In fact, the Vikings had a lot going for them. Despite their poor press,
>they were relatively socially advanced. Women could own property and had a
>real say in how things were done, they had a codified system of law that
>even kings could not break at whim, they were expert farmers, herdsmen,
>fishermen and sailors, and bathed a damn sight more than some later
>cultures.
Heh. Some of them _elected_ their kings, and could un-elect them
just as easily. And while assassination was quicker than voting
them out at the thing meet, were-gild for a king was likely out
of reach, and the alternative, and expatiating one's blood guilt
by being killed by one's victims kin was nearly as much of a pain
in the rear as being declared outlaw and being safe from no one.
--
Doug Wickstrom <nims...@comcast.net>
"The president has kept all of the promises he intended to keep."
--George Stephanopoulos
Now filtering out all cross-posted messages and everything posted
through Google News.
Ruth Lawrence
"Steve Pope" <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote in message
news:dqegqv$uo6$1...@blue.rahul.net...
> Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:
>
>>Visual Purple wrote:
>
>>> Let's not subsume BDSM under "kinky". Let's consider it alone.
>
>>> I contend that the need to even "play" that one is dominating and/or
>>> being subjugated is caused by those modes of interaction in society.
>
>> Strike one: Believing that BDSM = dominance and
>> submission. That's only a fraction of the activities that fall
>> under the BDSM rubric, and probably not even the most common.
>
> Perhaps, perhaps not. It's very difficult to estimate what
> fraction of BDSM activity traces back to a dominant or submissive
> preference. I'd probably say considerably more than half, from past
> discussion I'd guess that you'd disagree with this.
In my local scene it's way more than half. Wearying
until one is well known.
> Regarding the claim that such preferences are "cause by those modes
> of interaction in society", sure, the fetish must come from
> somewhere. It's like saying shoe fetishes are caused by shoes.
> It's a true statement, just not a particularly meaningful one.
Nor intelligent.
I rather think my physical masochism is a brain thing, actually.
Ruth
Ruth Lawrence
"Ted Eisenstein" <al...@socket.net> wrote in message
news:11sllp2...@corp.supernews.com...
Original sin! Original sin!
Ruth, come over odd for a sec
Steve Pope
> I rather think my physical masochism is a brain thing, actually.
It almost has to be. The only other possibility would be
that it's in your ganglia.
Steve
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> I don't have a lot of patience with "everything you know is wrong" social
> theories, whether about anarchy or about polyamory.
They're typically a form of circular logic, really. The axiom is that
the only people who are interested in a particular thing are defective;
any disagreement leads to the disagreers being numbered among those who
are too broken to be worth listening to.
I am unfond of theories that include the presumption that anyone who
disagrees with them is either defective or damned. If the only means by
which disagreement with an axiom-set may be formulated is presumed to be
some form of imbecility, the position is founded on fundamental contempt
for others.
- Darkhawk, finds it all terribly tiresome
Philippa Cowderoy
> So, who suffers from the "bad vibes" of BDSM (and all other behaviors
> that send violent vibrations out) most? Not those who are so
> spiritually/morally dense that they do not feel subtle vibrations
> (after all they are so coarse as to need extreme sensations), but
> rather the gentle, evolved folk who perceive the slightest tremors.
>
In other words, those who evolved up a blind alley and need to back their
way out by developing the ability to cope with the fact someone else is
getting a different experience out of the same stimuli.
A problem that's all in your head is still a problem.
Brain damage is but one form of mind damage.
float...@yahoo.com
not allowing those who would otherwise find ecstasy in the most sublime
sexual interactions to be able to feel that."
You're assuming BDSM is never estatic. And that pain is inherently a
negative thing. And for that matter the idea that any one vibe drowns
out another is just unsuporrtable. The universe is big, there's room
for all of it. For that matter if all parties are enjoying themselves,
and there is no shame or disgust in either of them, that may be a large
step up "vibrationally" from vanilla sex done by people who feel
underlying shame or beleive sex is bad. Go after them.
Ruth Lawrence
...which would also render political ruminations irrellevant!
Ruth
David Weinshenker
So that explains why the traffic on s.s.b-b
is rather less than it was a few years ago,
I suppose...
-dave w
Ruth Lawrence
"David Weinshenker" <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:43CB4BBE...@earthlink.net...
well, she has contributed to what there now is.
Ruth, who is spared her in aus.gardens thus far
Steve Pope
>"David Weinshenker" <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> So that explains why the traffic on s.s.b-b
>> is rather less than it was a few years ago,
>> I suppose...
>well, she has contributed to what there now is.
Only because some member of alt.poly had the indiscretion
to suggest that she start posting there.
I swear, some of your folk are indeed less discreet than
an anchovy.
S.
Josh Robinson
> Visual Purple wrote:
>
>>Let's not subsume BDSM under "kinky". Let's consider it alone.
>
>
> What's that supposed to mean? What would you
> consider to be "kink" but not "BDSM"?
Liking KFC.
/J
--
Josh Robinson
jmr59 [at] hermes [dot] cam [dot] ac [dot] uk
DGo...@aol.com
Visual Purple wrote:
> Not a judgement, but a question that I am grappling with:
>
> It would seem that a society characterized by optimum liberty and
> equality would logically have to reject the idea that BDSand/orM are
> normal, natural or desirable sexual expressions.
>
> If we reject political, economic and cultural bondage, domination,
> sadism and the willingness to be enslaved, then how can we justify them
> in intimate relationships?
>
> Doreen
I think the key here is "we". "We" will never be of one accord and
cannot reject anything unanimously. There will always be variation and
most likely, variation to the extreme, with one part of "us" seeing the
other as perverted. I personally would very much like to be a Tasty
Morsel, consumed at my own funeral by the mouths of those who knew me.
Those sitting at the table faced with a slice of me, roasted, certainly
have the right to differ in their opinion of what is appetizing. Urp!
To the extreme, indeed! Why, they might even have to hide me under the
mashed potatoes....
Doug Goncz
Replikon Research
Falls Church, VA 22044-0394
DGo...@aol.com
Chris Malcolm wrote:
> Liminal <limina...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Chris Malcolm wrote:
> > ...
> >> Or you might be asking a question like "if you join the Communist
> >> Party, does that mean you'll have to give up our Sunday evening games
> >> of Monopoly?"
>
> > You just reminded me of something. Years ago, before the fall of
> > communism in the USSR in a major American city I met the son of
> > counselate staff member buying a copy of "Monopoly". He said it wasn't
> > legal to have it but his father said he could get it into the country.
>
> Exactly. Ideologues are as jealous and paranoid about ideas as
> monogamists are about sexual partners :-)
(snip sig)
Interesting that Monopoly is Mono-Poly, an arrangement of a single
distributor with multiple (subjugate?) customers. The converse is a
monopsony, a plurality of suppliers competing for the attention of a
single buyer. This was on public radio recently; about the gas pipeline
from Russia to the European Union.
To get back to topic, I'd say if a woman has sex with multiple men,
she's generating a monopoly, or trying to. But if all those sperm cells
try to impregnate her egg, she's harboring a monopsony. All of which is
solipsism, and ends my soliloquy.
Doug
Laura Elizabeth Back
>David Weinshenker wrote:
>>
>> What's that supposed to mean? What would you
>> consider to be "kink" but not "BDSM"?
>
>Liking KFC.
Free clue, since you seem to have missed it the first time: Clever little
insulting remarks about things other people value are not as cute as you
think they are.
--
Laura E. Back
Josh Robinson
Sorry, Laura: that wasn't intended to be in any way insulting. Which I
suspect means we were talking at cross-purposes on whichever thread it was.
Apologies.
David Matthewman
Datapoint: I thought it was amusing (I don't really do 'cute').
--
David Matthewman
Lars Fischer
> Josh Robinson <us...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
> Free clue, since you seem to have missed it the first time: Clever little
> insulting remarks about things other people value are not as cute as you
> think they are.
Datapoint: it made me smile. I'm sorry it insulted you.
/Lars
Vicki Rosenzweig
00:22:24 +0000:
>In alt.polyamory, (Steve Pope) wrote in <dqekq3$32j$1...@blue.rahul.net>::
>In fact, the Vikings had a lot going for them. Despite their poor press,
>they were relatively socially advanced. Women could own property and had a
>real say in how things were done, they had a codified system of law that
>even kings could not break at whim, they were expert farmers, herdsmen,
>fishermen and sailors, and bathed a damn sight more than some later
>cultures.
See also: Varangians, Kievan Rus, and the Danelaw.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig v...@redbird.org http://www.redbird.org/
"Gravity is wonderful in many ways, but proper use of form
feeds is not among them." --Amy Gray, on r.a.sf.fandom
Vicki Rosenzweig
>
>Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> Liminal <limina...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> > ...
>> >> Or you might be asking a question like "if you join the Communist
>> >> Party, does that mean you'll have to give up our Sunday evening games
>> >> of Monopoly?"
>>
>> > You just reminded me of something. Years ago, before the fall of
>> > communism in the USSR in a major American city I met the son of
>> > counselate staff member buying a copy of "Monopoly". He said it wasn't
>> > legal to have it but his father said he could get it into the country.
>>
>> Exactly. Ideologues are as jealous and paranoid about ideas as
>> monogamists are about sexual partners :-)
>(snip sig)
>
>Interesting that Monopoly is Mono-Poly, an arrangement of a single
>distributor with multiple (subjugate?) customers.
Etymology, at no extra charge, because this sort of thing niggles at
me if not addressed:
the "poly" in "monopoly" is from "polein," to sell. (that's with an
omega, not an omicron, if anyone cares.) The "poly-" of
"polyamory" is polu- (or poly-, that's an upsilon, which is usually
transliterated y), meaning "many" and connected to "hoi
polloi." Another Greek word, "polis," city, gives us politics,
police, policy, and metropolis.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Pat Kight
> Where are you meeting S&M'ers? Gor chatrooms??
*snrch*
That would explain a lot, wouldn't it?
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Pat Kight
> Pat Kight <kig...@peak.org> wrote:
>>Visual Purple wrote:
>>>Let's not subsume BDSM under "kinky". Let's consider it alone.
>>>I contend that the need to even "play" that one is dominating and/or
>>>being subjugated is caused by those modes of interaction in society.
>>Strike one: Believing that BDSM = dominance and
>>submission. That's only a fraction of the activities that fall
>>under the BDSM rubric, and probably not even the most common.
> Perhaps, perhaps not. It's very difficult to estimate what
> fraction of BDSM activity traces back to a dominant or submissive
> preference. I'd probably say considerably more than half, from past
> discussion I'd guess that you'd disagree with this.
If so, it's a mild disagreement, based on observation rather than
anything like hard evidence. I have the sense that in the mainstream,
activities that fall at the B/D end of the spectrum are at least as
common as D/s ones, if not more so. At any rate, even a majority
fraction is still a fraction, and the Purple one is clearly mistaken to
suggest that BDSM is all about domination and subjugation.
> Regarding the claim that such preferences are "cause by those modes
> of interaction in society", sure, the fetish must come from
> somewhere. It's like saying shoe fetishes are caused by shoes.
> It's a true statement, just not a particularly meaningful one.
Yup.
-- Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Pat Kight
> David Weinshenker wrote:
>
>> Visual Purple wrote:
>>
>>> Let's not subsume BDSM under "kinky". Let's consider it alone.
>>
>>
>>
>> What's that supposed to mean? What would you consider to be "kink" but
>> not "BDSM"?
>
>
> Liking KFC.
*zing!*
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
serene
Eh. I thought it was funny.
serene
Josh Robinson
As far as I'm aware, (dis)liking McD hasn't been described as a kink
recently.
Laura Elizabeth Back
>Laura Elizabeth Back wrote:
>> Josh Robinson <us...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>>>David Weinshenker wrote:
>>>
>>>>What's that supposed to mean? What would you
>>>>consider to be "kink" but not "BDSM"?
>>>
>>>Liking KFC.
>>
>> Free clue, since you seem to have missed it the first time: Clever little
>> insulting remarks about things other people value are not as cute as you
>> think they are.
>
>Sorry, Laura: that wasn't intended to be in any way insulting. Which I
>suspect means we were talking at cross-purposes on whichever thread it was.
Thanks. I bristled at the initial "KFC is just Wrong" remark--the point
of my "YKIOK" comment wasn't to literally equate your preference with
kink, but to point out (too obliquely, I guess) that your statement of
personal preference came unpleasantly close to sounding like a generalized
value judgment.
>Apologies.
Likewise.
--
Laura E. Back
Laura Elizabeth Back
I might've if it hadn't been the successor to another recent un-funny
snide remark by the same person on the same topic.
--
Laura E. Back